Control Order Powers

Lord West of Spithead: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Policing, Crime and Security (David Hanson) has today made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of the control order powers during that period.
	The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
	The control order regime
	In the 16 September 2009 quarterly report to Parliament on control orders, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department made clear that he considered that the control order regime remained viable following the June 2009 House of Lords judgment in AF & Others, but intended to keep that assessment under review as cases were considered by the courts. The High Court has upheld four control orders since the House of Lords judgment, following court proceedings that were compliant with the Article 6 test laid down in AF & Others. The Government therefore remain of the view that the regime remains viable. The Government's position was set out in greater detail in its memorandum to the Home Affairs Committee on post-legislative scrutiny of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Cm 7797), which was laid before Parliament on 1 February.
	My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department also asked the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, to consider in his fifth annual report on the operation of the 2005 Act the continuing viability of the control order regime in the light of AF & Others. I welcome the conclusion of Lord Carlile in that report, which was laid before Parliament on 1 February "that abandoning the control orders system entirely would have a damaging effect on national security. There is no better means of dealing with the serious and continuing risk posed by some individuals". Lord Carlile emphasises that in reaching this conclusion he has "considered the effects of the court decisions on disclosure. I do not consider that their effect is to make control orders impossible". Lord Carlile's conclusions support our view that control orders continue to be an important tool to protect the public from the risk of terrorism where individuals who we suspect of involvement in terrorism-related activity cannot be prosecuted or deported.
	The powers in the 2005 Act have now been renewed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department for a further year from 11 March 2010, after both Houses of Parliament supported its renewal.
	The exercise of the control order powers in the last quarter
	As explained in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review Groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, no CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. This is because meetings were held just before, and are due to be held just after, this reporting period. Other meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
	During the period 11 December 2009 to 10 March 2010, one non-derogating control order has been made and served. No control orders have been renewed in accordance with Section 2(6) of the 2005 Act in this reporting period. In this reporting period there have been two revocations of control orders that were in force. Neither control order was revoked because it was not possible to meet the disclosure test set out in the House of Lords judgment in AF & Others. The Secretary of State revoked one control order because it was no longer considered necessary, and was directed by the court to revoke another on the basis that the court considered that the order was no longer necessary.
	In total, 11 control orders are currently in force, 10 of which are in respect of British citizens. All these control orders are non-derogating. Six individuals subject to a control order live in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals live in other police force areas. Two individuals have been charged with breaching their control order obligations; no criminal proceedings for breach of a control order were concluded during this reporting period.
	During this reporting period, 44 modifications of control order obligations were made. Thirteen requests to modify control order obligations were refused.
	Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act provides a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. One appeal under Section 10(1) of the 2005 Act has been lodged with the High Court during this reporting period. A right of appeal is also provided for by Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order and/or to modify any obligation under the order. During this reporting period two appeals have been lodged with the High Court under Section 10(3) of the 2005 Act.
	Judgments have been handed down in relation to five control orders in substantive judicial review proceedings under Section 3(10) of the 2005 Act during this reporting period. Four of these control orders have been upheld by the courts. The five judgments are these:
	judgment was handed down by the High Court in Secretary of State for the Home Department v BG and BH on 15 December 2009. Both control orders were upheld. No further detail can be given for legal reasons;judgment was handed down in Secretary of State for the Home Department v AM on 21 December 2009. The High Court upheld this control order as necessary and proportionate, finding that there was overwhelming evidence of AM's past involvement in terrorism-related activity and his future intentions. AM sought permission to appeal against this judgment on various grounds and permission has been granted;in Secretary of State for the Home Department v Al-Saadi, also handed down on 21 December 2009, the High Court found that while it was necessary for him to be placed on a control order when it was initially imposed, it was no longer necessary. The court directed the Secretary of State to revoke the control order;judgment in Secretary of State for the Home Department v BM was handed down on 16 February 2010. The control order was upheld by the court on the grounds that there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that BM is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity and that the imposition of a control order on him is necessary for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism; anda judgment was handed down on 18 January 2010 in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v AE and AF. This determined two preliminary issues: whether in circumstances where the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR compel the Secretary of State to withdraw the material relied upon in support of a control order such that the order cannot be maintained, the court should quash the control order or direct revocation; and whether the disclosure requirements identified in AF & Others apply where the Secretary of State wishes to rely upon closed material to defend against a claim for damages by a controlled person. The court found that in these circumstances the order should be quashed and that the requirements in AF & Others do apply, although the judge commented that it did not follow that the controlled individuals would automatically succeed on liability on all claims against the Secretary of State and that even if they did recover any damages, the level of compensation payable was likely to be low. The Secretary of State is appealing against the judgment.
	In addition to the appeals to the Court of Appeal mentioned above, one further individual subject to a control order has applied for, and been granted, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. One individual has been granted permission to appeal to the Supreme Court.
	Most full judgments are available at http://www. bailii.org/.

Crime: Reoffending

Lord Bach: My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Maria Eagle), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today laid before Parliament the Government's response to the Justice Committee report Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment. This document sets out the response of the Government to the report published by the House of Commons Justice Committee in January 2010.
	In January 2008 the Justice Committee launched an inquiry into the cost implications of the Government's current strategy to reduce reoffending and potential alternative policies. The committee's report contains 98 recommendations and conclusions and these make a case for a systematic approach to justice reinvestment as a way to reduce the size of the prison population, as well as providing an analysis of the current strategy for reducing reoffending and cutting crime. We are very grateful to the committee for its contribution to this important debate.
	The Government share with the committee the ambition to tackle both crime and the causes of crime: to reserve custody for the most serious offenders; to make full use of tough community sentences that demand change from the offender and maintain public confidence; and to invest in "what works" in reducing reoffending. The Government's approach involves punishment for breaking the law and giving offenders the opportunity to reform and turn away from crime. The aim is to ensure justice for victims and local communities; punishment and reform for offenders; and, ultimately, value for the taxpayer. This is a complex undertaking, and one in which we have already achieved much: according to the British Crime Survey, crime has dropped by over a third since 1997, and adult reoffending is down 20.3 per cent since 2000 and 11.1 per cent since 2005. However, we want to go further and will reflect carefully on the committee's analysis and recommendations.
	The Government have a duty to protect the public, and a key element of this is to provide sufficient prison places for the most dangerous, serious and persistent offenders. We are clear that prison remains the right option for these offenders and that a prison sentence, long or short, can be essential to demonstrating to law-abiding communities that offenders face the full range of punishments, including the deprivation of liberty behind bars. We must therefore ensure that prison is available as an option for sentencers when necessary. The Government are committed to increasing prison capacity to 96,000 places by 2014 to meet projected demand.
	Nevertheless, we recognise that for a significant number of offenders community sentences can be more effective: in 2008, the number of people sentenced to community sentences was 190,171 compared to 99,525 for immediate custody. More can be done as part of a wider approach that includes tough community sentences for lower-risk offenders and diversion away from the criminal justice system where alternatives would be more effective, particularly access to mental health services. Innovations such as intensive alternatives to custody, integrated offender management and the prolific and other priority offenders programme are clear examples of how partners can work together to focus resources where they can make the greatest impact. Our work to take forward the recommendations set out in the Corston and Bradley reviews (for women in prison and offenders with mental illnesses respectively) demonstrates our commitment to ensuring better use of community alternatives where this is possible and safe to do.
	The Government seek to ensure that prison is used in a measured, responsible way on behalf of the wider community, that what happens in prison is effective and efficiently delivered, and that resources can be used in both custody and the community to reduce reoffending. Our detailed response is set out in the Government's response to the Justice Committee report Cutting Crime: The Case for Justice Reinvestment, copies of which have been placed in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

EU: Foreign Ministers' Meeting

Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My honourable friend the Minister for Europe (Chris Bryant) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary represented the UK at the informal meeting of EU Foreign Ministers (Gymnich) on 5 and 6 March in Cordoba, Spain.
	The agenda items covered were as follows:
	Emerging Powers
	High Representative Ashton opened by saying the EU's relationship with the strategic powers was one of her top priorities. The transatlantic relationship remained central, but we also needed close engagement with countries like China, Brazil, India, South Africa and Russia. If the EU wanted to be relevant, we needed a direct relationship with these key players.
	The presidency (Moratinos) led a wide-ranging discussion of the EU's approach to the emerging powers following the changes to its structures brought about by the Lisbon treaty. Most Ministers agreed that we needed to make better use of summits and other meetings with these countries and in general take a more strategic and medium-term view of our relations, including now that the high representative had a five-year term in which to work.
	External Action Service
	Discussion of the EAS spanned both days. The high representative set out her thoughts and vision for the EAS including that it should bring coherence to all the EU's external activities. The Foreign Secretary and other Ministers expressed their support for the high representative and the need for a strong and effective EAS as a key tool to help deliver Europe's priorities.
	Middle East Peace Process
	The presidency led a short discussion on the Middle East peace process, focusing on how to take forward the December 2009 council conclusions. The high representative set out her plans to visit the region.
	Western Balkans
	The three Ministers of the candidate countries (FYROM, Croatia and Turkey) joined EU Foreign Ministers for a discussion.
	The high representative and Commissioner Füle stressed the importance of the region for the EU. The future of the region lay within Europe, and Europe would be judged by the effectiveness of its support to its neighbourhood. On visas, Commissioner Füle said the Commission would make recommendations in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Albania following recent work.

Health: Maternity Services

Baroness Thornton: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health (Andy Burnham) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have today announced the launch of a strategic vision for the further transformation of maternity services and early-years services. Maternity and Early Years-Making a Good Start to Family Life has been placed in the Library and copies are available for honourable Members from the Vote Office.
	The document has been developed jointly by the Department of Health, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit, drawing on the views of mothers and fathers, children's centre staff, local health practitioners and children.
	Maternity and Early Years-Making a Good Start to Family Life makes the clear case for helping families to give their baby the best possible start in life and sets out a vision of renewed and more integrated maternity and early-years services that put the excellent clinical care already available at the centre of a wider network of family support:
	with commitments to consult on new entitlements for women to access maternity services early in pregnancy and make important choices around where to have their baby;where local services will join up so that families have continuous care and support from early pregnancy to at least the child's sixth month-with a named Sure Start children's centre contact offered to parents early in pregnancy, who will invite them into the children's centre, and access to a health visitor for every children's centre; where families will also be offered more help to prepare for parenthood so they can give their baby the best possible start in life-with new antenatal education opportunities rolled out in settings that suit parents and with a further focus on the opportunities for fathers to get more involved-including an invitation for both parents to attend a Family Start meeting at their children's centre and an opportunity to agree a parents' plan together; and understanding that families will have very different needs, and that some may want more support in preparing for parenthood, with extra support for those families that need it-for instance by expanding the family nurse partnership to help young, vulnerable first-time families.
	With over 3,500 Sure Start children's centres now established across the country, in addition to the existing network of GP surgeries and health centres, we are well placed to reach all families, and to make sure all families can draw on the support they want in preparing for and bringing up their baby.

Health: Volunteers

Baroness Thornton: My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health (Phil Hope), has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The Government have today announced the launch of a strategic vision for volunteering for health and social care. Volunteering-Involving People and Communities in Delivering and Developing Health and Social Care Services has been placed in the Library and copies are available for honourable Members from the Vote Office.
	The vision is of a health and social care environment in which volunteering is encouraged and supported wherever it has the power to reduce inequality, enhance service quality or improve outcomes for individuals and communities. The strategic vision has been developed by the department in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders from across the third sector, national health service and local government.
	The Government's emphasis for the future of health and social care is on better and more personalised services. High Quality Care for All urges the NHS to place quality at the heart of everything it does. Putting People First and the transformation of adult social care services increasingly place individuals in control of decisions about the services they receive and the resources that pay for them. These developments present new roles and opportunities for volunteering that complement services provided by the paid workforce and engage the expertise of service users in the design and delivery of services.
	Volunteers already make an enormous difference to the experience people have of the health and care services they come into contact with-making a huge contribution to almost every sphere of health and social care. Volunteering helps to create people-centred services, keeps people active, engaged and independent and helps to meet the support needs of patients, carers and users of care services. It can and does contribute significantly to:
	quality, choice and innovation in services;building social capital and reduced isolation; enhancing the capacity of preventive care;meeting the culturally specific needs of health and social care service users; andincreasing connections between citizens and the services they use.
	Together these build a strong case for people across the health and social care system to refresh their thinking about volunteering and its role in their organisation or community. The strategic vision provides a starting point and an opportunity for leaders in this field to be at the forefront of service innovation, community engagement and improved user experience.
	Articulating key messages and a framework for action in relation to leadership, partnership, commissioning, volunteer management, and support for individual volunteers, the vision is designed to engage everybody working in the health and social care system, in the public and third sectors, to support its aim to:
	enhance the profile and involvement of volunteers;highlight its potential in terms of health and well-being;improve the evidence base for investment;promote best practice;reduce obstacles and increase opportunities that make volunteering accessible to all; andinspire and enable change to support its delivery.

Local Government: Housing and Planning Delivery Grant

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My right honourable friend the Minister for Housing and Planning (John Healey) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing the final allocations of £135 million of housing and planning delivery grant (HPDG) for 2009-10. The grant provides a direct incentive for councils to work with partners in the public and private sector to ensure that new homes are built where they are needed. It is an additional top-up to mainstream funding and councils can choose how to spend it locally.
	A copy of the determination and a table showing the local authority allocations is available in the Libraries of the House.

Members' and Peers' Correspondence

Baroness Crawley: My right honourable friend the Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Angela E Smith) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today publishing a report on departments' and agencies' performance on handling Members' and Peers' correspondence during 2009. Details are set out in the attached table. 2008 correspondence statistics can be found on 2 April 2009 (Official Report, 81WS-86WS). Departmental figures are based on substantive replies unless otherwise indicated.
	The footnotes to the table provide general background information on how the figures have been compiled.
	
		
			 Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives in 2009 
			 Correspondence from MPs/Peers to Ministers and Agency Chief Executives1 2009 
			 Department or Agency Target set for reply (working days) Number of letters received % of replies within target 
			 Attorney General's Office 20 192 88 
			 Department for Business, Innovation & Skills2 15 17623 58 
			 -Companies House 10 96 100 
			 -Insolvency Service 10 794 74 
			 -UK Intellectual Property Office 10 481 88 
			 Cabinet Office 15 1444 82 
			 Charity Commission 10 214 78 
			 Department for Children, Schools and Families 15 15256 78 
			 Department for Communities and Local Government 15 9154 63 
			 -Planning Inspectorate 10 184 90 
			 Crown Prosecution Service 15 483 96 
			 Department for Culture, Media and Sport3 20 3215 56 
			 -Royal Parks 20 30 93 
			 Ministry of Defence 15 6254 86 
			 -Met Office 10 14 93 
			 -Service Personnel and Veterans Agency 15 198 94 
			 Department for Energy and Climate Change4 15 9071 51 
			 Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs 15 12527 73 
			 -Animal Health 15 76 93 
			 -Marine Fisheries Agency 15 35 82 
			 -Rural Payments Agency 15 406 66 
			 Food Standards Agency
			 DH Ministers replies 20 408 70* 
			  20 584 95** 
			 FSA Chair/CE replies 20 120 90 
			 -Meat Hygiene Service 15 22 100 
			 * response to non-campaign letters
			 ** response to campaign letters
			 Foreign and Commonwealth Office 20 10462 82 
			 Government Equalities Office 20 1438 63 
			 Department of Health 20 16008 93 
			 -Medicines and Healthcare Products 20 516 95* 
			 Regulatory Agency 20 22 77** 
			 -NHS Purchasing and Supplies Agency 20 33 94 
			 *Agency Ministerial cases
			 **Letters sent directly to Agency Chief Executive or where Agency Chief Executives responded on behalf of Ministers
			 Home Office 15 9128 88 
			 -Criminal Records Bureau 10 933 99 
			 -Identity and Passport Service 10 1012 72 
			 -UK Border Agency 20 66320 78 
			 Department for International Development 15 2013 95 
			 Ministry of Justice5 20 4554 63 
			 -HM Courts Service 20 729 65 
			 -HM Land Registry 20 52 96 
			 -National Archives 20 60 95 
			 -National Offender Management Service 20 1723 60 
			 -Northern Ireland Court Service 20 16 88 
			 -Office of the Public Guardian 20 220 82 
			 -Official Solicitor and Public Trustee 20 32 50 
			 -Tribunals Service 20 273 66 
			 Northern Ireland Office 15 637 85 
			 -Compensation Agency 10 15 73 
			 -Northern Ireland Prison Service 10 79 77 
			 Office for National Statistics 10 112 79 
			 Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Schools 7 232 58 
			 Office of Fair Trading 15 497 72 
			 Office of Gas and Electricity Markets 15 200 77 
			 Office of the Leader of the House of Commons 15 418 72 
			 Office of the Leader of the House of Lords 15 63 92 
			 Office of Rail Regulation 20 93 92 
			 Office of Water Services 10 404 58 
			 Postal Services Commission 7 13 77 
			 Scotland Office6 15 75 40 
			 Serious Fraud Office 20 43 81 
			 Department for Transport 15 9150 89 
			 -Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency 7 1486 100 
			 -Driving Standards Agency 10 185 99 
			 -Highways Agency 15 443 94 
			 -Maritime and Coastguard Agency 10 12 91 
			 -Vehicle and Operator Services Agency 10 112 98 
			 HM Treasury7 15 16251 53 
			 -H M Revenue and Customs 15 5492 75 
			  15 774* 81 
			 -National Savings and Investments 15 19 79 
			 -Office of Government Commerce 15 47 85 
			  15 93** 93 
			 *Local Office and 'delegated' figures (where local tax offices have replied directly to MPs)
			 ** Letters where Chief Executive has replied
			 -Valuation Office 18 25 72 
			 Treasury Solicitor's Department 10 32 100 
			 Wales Office 15 101 82 
			 Department for Work and Pensions 20 18062 76 
			 -Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission 15 6352 99 
			 -Debt Management 15 43 86 
			 -Health and Safety Executive 15 117 66 
			 -Jobcentre Plus 15 2847 93 
			 -Pension, Disability and Carers Service 15 2292 84 
		
	
	1 Departments and Agencies which received 10 MPs/Peers letters or fewer are not shown in this table. Holding or interim replies are not included unless otherwise indicated. The report does not include correspondence considered as Freedom of Information requests.
	2 Includes BERR and DIUS. Following an increase in correspondence relating to the recession, a review has been undertaken to improve performance and recommendations are now being implemented. Performance rose to 73 per cent by end of 2009.
	3 An external review was undertaken mid-year, from which an action plan was agreed. Performance rose to 73 per cent by end of 2009.
	4 In 2009 DECC's correspondence was handled by a shared services system. DECC now has its own correspondence unit which will lead to an improvement in the handling of correspondence.
	5 A substantial increase in the volume of correspondence received by MoJ has contributed to a downturn in performance. Measures are in place to improve correspondence handling as a matter of urgency and these have led to a significant improvement. Performance rose to 86 per cent by end of 2009.
	6 Measures have been put in place to improve the correspondence process as a matter of urgency, including systematic monitoring by senior management. The drop in performance in 2009 is largely attributable to delays in receiving essential information. Measures have been put in place to improve our correspondence process as a matter of urgency, including systematic monitoring by senior management.
	7 Performance has been affected by a significant increase in all correspondence to the Treasury, creating a backlog of cases in the first half of 2009. This has been addressed over the course of the year and performance rose to 59 per cent by end of 2009.

Pensions: National Employment Savings Trust (NEST)

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Pensions and the Ageing Society (Angela Eagle) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I can confirm that the Personal Accounts Delivery Authority signed the contract for the administration of NEST with Tata Consultancy Services yesterday. This marks another important milestone on the road to delivering a pension scheme for the millions of people currently excluded from low cost pension saving.
	As the terms of this contract have been finalised, the Government are now able to set out their plans for financing NEST.
	NEST will be paid for by member charges. In the long term, it will be self-financing, and Government expect it to realise the Pensions Commission's ambition of a charge level as low as 0.3 per cent of members' funds under management-an annual management charge (AMC) of 0.3 per cent.
	Nevertheless, NEST will need to meet set-up and operational costs incurred in the period before charge revenues are sufficient to meet the full costs of the scheme. Therefore, NEST is expected to make a small additional charge on contributions of around 2 per cent, until set-up costs are extinguished.
	This means that the members of NEST, many of whom are expected to have low and moderate earnings will, for the first time, be able to save for a pension while facing charges at levels currently available only to higher earners or those accepted into large pension schemes.
	NEST will have a public service duty to accept all employers who want to use the scheme to discharge their duty automatically to enrol workers, irrespective of costs. This means that NEST will be required to bear costs that other pension providers do not face. In recognition of this and in order to preserve the scheme's low cost aims, the Government intend to provide relief to the scheme to limit the overall interest charges scheme members incur on funds borrowed to the Government's cost of borrowing. The Government are currently seeking the European Commission's approval that this approach is consistent with European rules on competition and state aid.
	The Government believe that this funding package represents a fair balance between delivering good value to NEST's members, ensuring affordability for the taxpayer and putting NEST on a level playing field with the existing pensions industry.

Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010

Lord Brett: On Wednesday 10 March the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, moved a Motion, "this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have laid before Parliament the draft Royal Parks and Other Open Spaces (Amendment) etc. Regulations 2010 despite the public objections to the imposition of parking charges in Richmond Park and Bushy Park; and therefore calls on Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft regulations and to replace them with regulations that do not contain such parking charges, but which enable the reduction of speed limits and other improvements to public amenity in the Royal Parks". The Motion was carried by 136 votes to 71. Previously that evening an amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, that the draft regulations be not made was rejected by the House.
	The Government take seriously the concerns of the House and have considered the next steps for the draft statutory instrument.
	The Government believe that the principle of introducing parking charges in the two parks is sound, and that the objective of encouraging visitors to consider means of transport to the parks other than by private car is right. Furthermore, the Government believe that the proposed rates of charge are set at a reasonable level, so as not to be punitive but to introduce a disincentive to using a car to visit what are two environmentally sensitive parks.
	The Government have agreed to review the impact of parking charges in Richmond and Bushy Parks within 18 months of their introduction. The review will look at areas of concern to the House, such as the potential for displacement parking. The results of the review will be published.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Rising, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said that the proposed regulation changes would end free access to two great Royal Parks. In my reply I said that the Royal Parks are free to everyone and will remain so. This is manifestly the case. Charges will apply only to use of the parking facilities.
	Parking charges are already in place in the three other Royal Parks with public parking provision, and are also in place in comparable sites across the country.
	The noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that the policy would lead to railway style car parks with bright spotlights. This is not, and has never been, the intention. Bright spotlights would be wholly inappropriate for such sensitive sites, and unnecessary in parks which are closed at night. They will not be installed. Moneys raised from parking charges will be offset against necessary investment to bring the car parks up to an acceptable general standard and make important environmental improvements. This investment will enhance and not detract from the landscape and fabric of the parks.
	There is an estimated works maintenance liability of around £58 million across the Royal Parks. Approximately £2.7 million needs to be spent on the car parks and roads in Richmond and Bushy Parks irrespective of the introduction of car parking charges.
	During the debate there were calls for road tolls as an alternative to car parking. There is no evidence that road tolls would be popular with visitors. As I stated in the House, when the public was last consulted on this issue there was little support. The Government have not ruled out road tolls indefinitely, but there are no immediate plans to reconsider the issue.